V. I. Lenin

Draft Theses on

National and Colonial Questions

For The Second Congress Of The Communist 

      International[1]

Written:5 June, 1920First Published:Published in June, 1920; Published according to the manuscript and checked against the text of the proof-sheet, as amended by V. I. LeninSource:Lenin’sCollected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965,Volume 31, pages 144-151Translated:Julius KatzerTranscription\HTML Markup:David Walters&R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of theGNU Free Documentation License

In submitting for discussion by the Second
      Congress of the Communist International the following draft theses
      on the national and the colonial questions I would request all
      comrades, especially those who possess concrete information on any
      of these very complex problems, to let me have their opinions,
      amendments, addenda and concrete remarksin the most concise
	form(no mree than two or three pages),
      particularly on the following points:Austrian experience;Polish-Jewish and Ukrainian experience;Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium;Ireland;Danish-German, Italo-French and Italo-Slav relations;Balkan experience;Eastern peoples;The struggle against Pan-Islamism;Relations in the Caucasus;The Bashkir and Tatar Republics;Kirghizia; Turkestan, its experience;Negroes in America;Colonies;China-Korea-Japan.

June 5, 1920

1) An abstract or formal posing of the problem of equality in
    general and national equality in particular is in the very nature
    of bourgeois democracy. Under the guise of the equality of the
    individual in general, bourgeois democracy proclaims the formal or
    legal equality of the property-owner and the proletarian, the
    exploiter and the exploited, thereby grossly deceiving the
    oppressed classes. On the plea that all men are absolutely equal,
    the bourgeoisie is transforming the idea of equality, which is
    itself a reflection of relations in commodity production, into a
    weapon in its struggle against the abolition of classes. The real
    meaning of the demand for equality consists in its being a demand
    for the abolition of classes.

2) In conformity with its fundamental task of combating
         bourgeois democracy and exposing its falseness and hypocrisy,
         the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the
         proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must
         base its policy, in the national question too, not on
         abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise
         appraisal of the specific historical situation and,
         primarily, of economic conditions; second, on a clear
         distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes,
         of working and exploited people, and the general concept of
         national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of
         the ruling class; third, on an equally clear distinction
         between the oppressed, dependent and subject nations and the
         oppressing, exploiting and sovereign nations, in order to
         counter the bourgeois-democratic lies that play down this
         colonial and financial enslavement of the vast majority of
         the world’s population by an insignificant minority of
         the richest and advanced capitalist countries, a feature
         characteristic of the era of finance capital and
         imperialism.

3) The imperialist war of 1914-18 has very clearly revealed to
    all nations and to the oppressed classes of the whole world the
    falseness of bourgeois-democratic phrases, by practically
    demonstrating that the Treaty of Versailles of the celebrated
    “Western democracies” is an even more brutal and foul
    act of violence against weak nations than was the Treaty of
    Brest-Litovsk of the German Junkers and the Kaiser. The League of
    Nations and the entire post war policy of the Entente reveal this
    truth with even greater clarity and distinctness. They are
    everywhere intensifying the revolutionary struggle both of the
    proletariat in the advanced countries and of the toiling masses in
    the colonial and dependent countries. They are hastening the
    collapse of the petty-bourgeois nationalist illusions that nations
    can live together in peace and equality under capitalism.

4) From these fundamental premises it follows that the
    Communist International’s entire policy on the national and
    the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of
    the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and
    countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the
    landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee
    victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national
    oppression and inequality is impossible.

5) The world political situation has now placed the
    dictatorship of the proletariat on the order of the day. World
    political developments are of necessity concentrated on a single
    focus—the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the
    Soviet Russian Republic, around which are inevitably grouped, on
    the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all
    countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation
    movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities,
    who are learning from bitter experience that their only salvation
    lies in the Soviet system’s victory over world
    imperialism.

6) Consequently, one cannot at present confine oneself to a
    bare recognition or proclamation of the need for closer union
    between the working people of the various nations; a policy must
    be pursued that will achieve the closest alliance, with Soviet
    Russia, of all the national and colonial liberation movements. The
    form of this alliance should be determined by the degree of
    development of the communist movement in the proletariat of each
    country, or of the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement of the
    workers and peasants in backward countries or among backward
    nationalities.

7) Federation is a transitional form to the complete unity of
    the working people of different nations. The feasibility of
    federation has already been demonstrated in practice both by the
    relations between the R.S.F.S.R. and other Soviet Republics (the
    Hungarian, Finnish[2]and Latvian[3]in the past, and the
    Azerbaijan and Ukrainian at present), and by the relations within
    the R.S.F.S.R. in respect of nationalities which formerly enjoyed
    neither statehood nor autonomy (e.g., the Bashkir and Tatar
    autonomous republics in the R.S.F.S.R., founded in 1919 and 1920
    respectively).

8) In this respect, it is the task of the Communist
    International to further develop and also to study and test by
    experience these new federations, which are arising on the basis
    of the Soviet system and the Soviet movement. In recognising that
    federation is a transitional form to complete unity, it is
    necessary to strive for ever closer federal unity, bearing in
    mind, first, that the Soviet republics, surrounded as they are by
    the imperialist powers of the whole world—which from the
    military standpoint are immeasurably stronger—cannot
    possibly continue to exist without the closest alliance; second,
    that a close economic alliance between the Soviet republics is
    necessary, otherwise the productive forces which have been ruined
    by imperialism cannot be restored and the well-being of the
    working people cannot be ensured; third, that there is a tendency
    towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the
    proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and according to a
    common plan. This tendency has already revealed itself quite
    clearly under capitalism and is bound to be further developed and
    consummated under socialism.

9) The Communist International’s national policy in the
    sphere of relations within the state cannot be restricted to the
    bare, formal, purely declaratory and actually non-committal
    recognition of the equality of nations to which the bourgeois
    democrats confine themselves—both those who frankly admit
    being such, and those who assume the name of socialists (such as
    the socialists of the Second International).

In all their propaganda and agitation—both within
    parliament and outside it—the Communist parties must
    consistently expose that constant violation of the equality of
    nations and of the guaranteed rights of national minorities which
    is to be seen in all capitalist countries, despite their
    “democratic” constitutions. It is also necessary,
    first, constantly to explain that only the Soviet system is
    capable of ensuring genuine equality of-nations, by uniting first
    the proletarians and then the whole mass of the working population
    in the struggle against the bourgeoisie; and, second, that all
    Communist parties should render direct aid to the revolutionary
    movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for
    example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the
    colonies.

Without the latter condition, which is particularly important,
    the struggle against the oppression of dependent nations and
    colonies, as well as recognition of their right to secede, are but
    a false signboard, as is evidenced by the parties of the Second
    International.

10) Recognition of internationalism in word, and its
    replacement in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism,
    in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common,
    not only among the parties of the Second International, but also
    among those which have withdrawn from it, and often even among
    parties which now call themselves communist. The urgency of the
    struggle against this evil, against the most deep-rooted
    petty-bourgeois national prejudices, looms ever larger with the
    mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of
    the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i.e., existing in a
    single country and incapable of determining world politics) into
    an international one (i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat
    involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of
    exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a
    whole). Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism
    the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing
    more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely
    verbal, petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national
    self-interest intact, whereas proletarian internationalism
    demands, first, that the interests of the proletarian struggle in
    any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that
    struggle on a world-wide scale, and, second, that a nation which
    is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and
    willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow
    of international capital.

Thus, in countries that are already fully capitalist and have
    workers’ parties that really act as the vanguard of the
    proletariat, the struggle against opportunist and petty-bourgeois
    pacifist distortions of the concept and policy of internationalism
    is a primary and cardinal task.

11) With regard to the more backward states and nations, in
    which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations
    predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the
    bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and
    that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests
    primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is
    colonially or financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other
    influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward
    countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends,
    which strive to combine the liberation movement against European
    and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the
    positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite
    points 2 and 3 and wrote “2 and 3 to be
    united”.—Editor.]

fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support
      to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed
      proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of
      feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most
      revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible
      alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the
      revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and
      in the backward countries generally. It is particularly
      necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of
      the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations
      predominate—by setting up “working people’s
      Soviets”,  etc.;

fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to
      give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation
      trends in the backward countries; the Communist International
      should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in
      colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these
      countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which
      will be communist not only in name, are brought together and
      trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the
      struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their
      own nations. The Communist International must enter into a
      temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and
      backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should
      under all circumstances uphold the independence of the
      proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;

sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the
      broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of
      the backward countries, the deception systematically practised
      by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically
      independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon
      them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day
      international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and
      weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.

12) The age-old oppression of colonial and weak nationalities by
      the imperialist powers has not only filled the working
      masses of the oppressed countries with animosity towards the
      oppressor nations, but has also aroused distrust in these
      nations in general, even in their proletariat. The
      despicable betrayal of socialism by the majority of the
      official leaders of this proletariat in 1914-19, when
      “defence of country” was used as a
      social-chauvinist cloak to conceal the defence of the
      “right” of their “own” bourgeoisie
      to oppress colonies and fleece financially dependent
      countries, was certain to enhance this perfectly legitimate
      distrust. On the other hand, the more backward the country,
      the stronger is the hold of small-scale agricultural
      production, patriarchalism and isolation, which inevitably
      lend particular strength and tenacity to the deepest of
      petty-bourgeois prejudices, i.e., to national egoism and
      national narrow-mindedness. These prejudices are bound to
      die out very slowly, for they can disappear only after
      imperialism and capitalism have disappeared in the advanced
      countries, and after the entire foundation of the backward
      countries’ economic life has radically changed.

      It is therefore the duty of the class-conscious communist
      proletariat of all countries to regard with particular caution
      and attention the survivals of national sentiments in the
      countries and among nationalities which have been oppressed the
      longest; it is equally necessary to make certain concessions
      with a view to more rapidly overcoming this distrust and these
      prejudices. Complete victory over capitalism cannot be won
      unless the proletariat and, following it, the mass of working
      people in all countries and nations throughout the world
      voluntarily strive for alliance and unity.

[1]Notes to “Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the
    Colonial Questions” were received by Lenin from
    G. V. Chicherin, N. N. Krestinsky, J. V. Stalin, M. G. Rafes,
    Y. A. Preobrazhensky, N. D. Lapinsky, and I. Nedelkov
    (N. Shablin), representative of the Bulgarian Communists, as well
    as from a number of leaders in Bashkiria, Kirghizia, and
    Turkestan. Along with correct ideas, the notes contained certain
    grave errors. Thus, Chicherin gave a wrong interpretation to
    Lenin’s theses on the necessity of support for national
    liberation movements and on agreements with the national
    bourgeoisie, without due regard for Lenin’s distinction
    between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry. With regard to this
    Lenin wrote: “I laygreaterstress on the alliance
    with the peasantry (which doesnot quitemean the
    bourgeoisie)” (Central Party Archives of the Institute of
    Marxism-Leninism of the C.C. C.P.S.U.). Referring to the relations
    between the future socialist Europe and the economically
    underdeveloped and dependent countries, Preobrazhensky wrote:
    “. . . if it proves impossible to reach economic agreement
    with the leading national groups, the latter will inevitably be
    suppressed by force and economically important regions will be
    compelled to join a union of European Republics.” Lenin
    decisively objected to this remark: “. . . it goes too
    far. It cannot be proved, and it is wrong to say thatsuppressionby force is “inevitable”. That is
    radically wrong” (seeVoprosy Istorii KPSS[Problems of the C.P.S.U. History] 1958, No. 2,
    p. 16).

A grave error was made by Stalin, who did not
    agree with Lenin’s proposition on the difference between
    federal relations among the Soviet republics based on autonomy,
    and federal relations among independent republics. In a letter to
    Lenin, dated June 12, 1920, he declared that in reality
    “there is no difference between these two types of federal
    relations, or else it is so small as to be
    negligible”. Stalin continued to advocate this later, when,
    in 1922, he proposed the “autonomisation” of the
    independent Soviet republics. These ideas were criticised in
    detail by Lenin in his article “The Question of
    Nationalities or ’Autonomisation’”,  and in his
    letter to members of the Political Bureau “On the Formation
    of the U.S.S.R” (see present edition, Vol. 36, and Lenin
    Miscellany XXXVI; pp. 496-98).

[2]As a result of the revolution which commenced in Finland on
    January 27, 1918, the bourgeois government of Svinhufvud was
    overthrown and the working class assumed power. On January 29, the
    revolutionary government of Finland, the Council of People’s
    Representatives was formed by Edvard Gylling, Yrjö Sirola,
    Otto Kuusinen, A. Taimi and others. The following were among the
    most important measures taken by the workers’ government:
    the law on the transfer to landless peasants, without
    indemnification, of the land they actually tilled; tax-exemption
    for the poorest sections of the population; the expropriation of
    enterprises whose owners had fled the country; the establishment
    of state control over private banks (their functions being assumed
    by the State Bank).

On March 1, 1918, a treaty between the Finnish
    Socialist Workers’ Republic and the R.S.F.S.R. was signed in
    Petrograd. Based on the principle of complete equality and respect
    for the sovereignty of the two sides, this was the first treaty in
    world history to be signed between two socialist countries.

The proletarian revolution, however, was
    victorious only in the south of Finland. The Svinhufvud government
    concentrated all counter-revolutionary forces in the north of the
    country, and appealed to the German Kaiser’s government for
    help. As a result of German armed intervention, the Finnish
    revolution was put down in May 1918, after a desperate civil
    war. White terror reigned in the country, tens of thousands of
    revolutionary workers and peasants were executed or tortured to
    death in the prisons.

[3]As
    a result of mass action by the Lettish proletariat and peasantry
    against the German invaders and the counter-revolutionary
    government of Ulmanis, a provisional Soviet government was
    established in Latvia on December 17, 1918, which issued a
    Manifesto on the assumption of state power by the Soviets. Soviet
    Russia gave fraternal help to the Lettish people in their struggle
    to establish Soviet rule and strengthen the Latvian Soviet
    Socialist Republic.

Under the leadership of the Latvian Communist
    Party and the Latvian Soviet Government, a Red Army was formed,
    the landed estates were confiscated, the banks and big commercial
    and industrial enterprises were nationalised, social insurance and
    an eight-hour working day were introduced, and a system of public
    catering for working people was organised.

In March 1919, German troops and the
    whiteguards, armed and equipped by the U.S. and the Entente
    imperialists, attacked Soviet Latvia. In May they captured Riga,
    the capital of Soviet Latvia. After fierce fighting the entire
    territory of Latvia had been overrun by the interventionists by
    the beginning of 1920. The counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie
    established a regime of bloody terror, thousands of revolutionary
    workers and peasants being killed or thrown into prison.